Re: copyright expiration as a spur to creativity

On 8 Sep 1998, Timothy Phillips <hrothgar[_at_]telepath.com> wrote:
>
> Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
> >
> > Your argument jumped the track when you claimed "works ... are
> > public property." That is not true. My creations are not public
> > property. My creations are mine. I can destroy them without penalty.
> > I can determine if, when, how many copies may be published and how
> > many times they may be performed. I have no obligation to the public.
> > The public has no say.
>
> In ordinary cases literary works are communicated to others. They are
> public property if they are "property" at all. The public, initially,
> has every say in the work. But it generously agrees to refrain, for a
> time, from excersing its full rights in the work, in order to give you
> a chance to make back your investment in the work.

The public generously leaves Macy's department store with an indefinite term of ownership.

In "ordinary cases literary works are" never published.

On 08 Sep 1998, Dan L. Burk <burkdanl[_at_]shu.edu> wrote:
>
> On 9/8/98, Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
> >
> > Michael A. Scarpitti <mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > In the first place, IP cannot really be "owned", only the
> > > reproduction rights can be owned. It's only real value lies
> > > precisely in its availability to others, for a price.
> >
> > A trade secret is certainly owned and valued for its exclusivity
> > and unavailability to others. I believe Xerox Corporation keeps
> > its toner forumla a secret.
>
> I should know better than to get involved in this. I really should.
>
> In the first place, Mr. Scarpitti was clearly talking about
> copyrights, not trade secrets. In the second place, trade secrets
> are NOT exclusive. They are only protected from misappropriation.

By "misappropriation" I think you mean "theft." What's the difference between protection from theft and the exclusivity I described?

On 8 Sep 1998, Robert Cumbow <cumbr[_at_]perkinscoie.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 08, 1998, Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> > The counterfeiting of Einstein's bust of Churchill was an
> > international scandal.
>
> That would be EPstein.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY <70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com> Received on Thu Sep 10 1998 - 23:03:26 GMT